The Human Prospect

 We live in a very angry world.  

Stress levels are very high, thanks in great part to media doing what they do best.

Several weeks ago an organization calling itself "Hamas" mounted an attack on Israeli civilians, murdering well over a thousand men, women, and children.  Since being founded, Israel has coexisted with the so-called "Palestinians" on tenuous terms, at best.  The Israelis see the Palestinians as the bad guys in the strained affairs between them.  The Palestinians see the Israelis as the bad guys.  Each has their point of view on the matters at hand.

I, for one, see this from all sides.  There is culpability aplenty for all.  The ones I pity most are the children.  They get no chance; no say.  They are nursed on the corruptions of the adults around them.  Those corruptions are not always what one might think, and they cover a very broad spectrum of characteristics.  It is not the Israeli/Palestinian strife of which I wish to speak now, for that is but one mere example of a world choking on such strife and the chaos and bloodshed it so often drags along with it.  It is the propagation of human rot and filth and the inevitable doom it is likely to bring to bear upon us all that I shall address.

The human race is hopeless as a matter of its proclivity to perpetuate the evils and errors of the past, and to spawn and propagate new ones, generation over generation.  The fact that we do this with such steadfast reliability is the very guarantee that the day is likely to come where we will seal our destruction as a species such that regardless of whether so much as even a handful of us survive, we will nonetheless have been destroyed in toto, for there are fates out there which are worse than death.  

The entropy of thought, of perception, of the interpretation of perception, can only grow in the superorganism of a culture, which seems to take on a life of its own at some point.  The hatreds and other corruptions held and made manifest by individuals remain safe in the bowels of the collective id of their underlying culture.  It is through that channel that those errors pass on from one generation to the next.  And as humanity's technological levers grow in length, those who wield them do so with with ever greater latitude to act with ever more vast and inescapable effect. When such individuals hold such power, harboring all the bitter and hate-fired emotions to which their inherited corruptions invariably give rise, the ultimate outcomes of such combinations can run but one way: to chaos, disaster, and raw tragedy.  

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; surveillance hardware, and the now emerging machine intelligence in the hands of men running wildly mad in their perceptions and the opinions which arise therefrom shall be the basis of our ruin; it already is. Worst of all, the midbrains of men running off the rails with a fervor that is bio-functionally indistinguishable from that of the religion they deny, and the God they hate so deeply and disdainfully, will drive every choice they make.   They shall be thinking of naught but to satisfy the lust for what they believe, however conveniently, is "right". it is by this route that they shall render themselves in no radical way different from those upon whom they vent the rage-hatred that lives within them like a metastatic cancer.  We are doomed because there will be no stopping what is coming; there is no stopping it because we refuse to so much as see it, much less to act in the defense of what is good between human beings; things worth defending.

Men such as Schwab and Gates have crossed a threshold and have doubtlessly carried minions on their coat tails.  The day will come when those men will act with neither equivocation nor compunction, and humanity will become a settled issue in large part, if not in toto.  And if some survive, which is likely, those people will believe themselves as having escaped fate, or perhaps as being immune to what had been brewing for thousands of years in the breast of humanity.  One again shall men delude themselves for the sake of their immediate comfort.  

Much like the Krell, they will never be able to escape what they are, and shutting their minds to the truth of it, they will doom themselves to ultimate extinguishment in ignominy equal to that of those they so self-righteously murdered in the false belief that they were cutting some cord with the past, only to be carrying its seed within themselves, denying its existence any further, and thereby ensuring with absolute guaranty that the beast will arise once again as the cycle begins afresh.

We, the sufficient mass of humanity and the ones most in need of maintaining our thoughts and reveries upon the Sacred, have turned our backs to it.  Is it any wonder that we have ended up where we are, and that we got here by so tortured a path?  We who ventured from the old world that stood stably for millennia, to build the new, the  men of European descent whose embrace of "science" which lead to our stepping from the traditional confines that bound us within a circle, needed the Sacred more than any other people on the planet as we ventured beyond those ancient lines.  Yet enough of us turned our backs to it, and now we stare into an abyss of our own contriving.  

Our venturing and the achievements that resulted therefrom, however, were the precise reasons for closing our eyes to God.  Who, having accomplished such things, wishes to share credit?  Few, I suspect.  And so we march headlong into something of which I have no interest in being a part.

The more powerful a man becomes, the more does he need a sense of the Sacred as a guide for his choices.  This is precisely what the men currently wielding true material power in the human world lack.  The combination of great material power and an absence of that which the Divine lends in the relevant terms can lead nowhere good in a way similar to locking a curious toddler in a room with a nuclear warhead and a button that, if pressed, will result in detonation.

Worse yet is the man who is convinced that his sense of duty, which drives his decision making, springs from correct roots.  He is the most dangerous of all because he stands so utterly convinced that his views are not only correct, but are uniquely so.  Verily is he the perfect mirror-image of the man of religion whom he hates with such depthless and bitter rage.

Humanity stands deep in the kimchee, self-extrication appearing ever less likely with each passing minute.  Until we choose to limit our prerogatives along lines of choice that coincide with something even vaguely resembling basic sanity, we shall continue the march toward the maw of the beast that consumes everything in its path.  Understanding that which is Sacred is key, and no such understanding can come if men are unwilling to stop themselves for a moment to consider the question.

I cannot say what will happen along this path on which we find ourselves, but I can speak to the probabilities, none of which look particularly good at this time.

As always, give these thoughts some jiggle in your brain, and please accept my best wishes.

Hamas' Half-baked Attack On Israel Reveals Its Truer Face

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2023/10/hamas-half-baked-attack-on-israel.html



Hamas has conducted what was very clearly a carefully planned assault on the people of Israel, murdering well over 1000 presumably innocent men, women, and children. There is no question that the attack took considerable time, money, and care in its design and the preparations for bringing it to fruition. Given the long history of strife in the area by the usual cast of characters, it is also clear that Hamas had to have been keenly aware of the response they could expect in return for their treachery.

In the wake of the attack, the Israeli hornets' nest was stirred aplenty, and for the past seven days their armed forces have been busily pounding Gaza, resulting in thousands of casualties. In addition, Israel has cut off all electrical power to Gaza, as well as network connectivity, food deliveries, water, and so forth, all these measures being predictable in the extreme. There is no doubt that Hamas knew all this would happen.

How is it then that Hamas, which presumes to speak for the Palestinian people, and whose rhetoric gushes with intmations of their devotion to same, failed to make provisions in anticipation of the Israeli response that was so readily predictable? Why did Hamas fail to ensure there would be plentiful food hoards? Medicine? Water? Electrical power equipment?

If Hamas' cause is so just, so noble, and if "God" supports them, then why do they hide themselves amid the innocent like cowards, virtually guaranteeing widespread injury to the people in whose name they claim to act? Why, if their cause be just, do they make every effort to escape into neighboring nations after having done the deeds they claim as having been righteously taken against the people of Israel?

What Hamas has done and continues to do seems not unlike someone who eagerly engages in sexual activities, yet when there is a child to raise, is nowhere to be found.

Furthermore, to label the Palestinians as in any way being mere and innocent civilians (small children excepted) carries an equally foul stench. In order to be genuinely innocent, they would have to stand in sincere and open disapproval of Hamas' existence. Tolerance of an official policy that says "death to Israel" cannot be reasonably taken as innocent, even in the face of threats to anyone daring to speak out. If a Palestinian disapproves of Hamas, then he should take whatever action he is able to thwart and erode the designs of Hamas. Granted, it may not be possible to do much that is immediately and directly effective, given that we are speaking of a terrorist organization which has shown its eager will to spill blood pursuant to their goals and objectives. But there are things that could be done, nonetheless, such as moving away from the area. How about sharing with Israeli authorities information that might help them take effective action against specific individuals who strive to precipitate blood-soaked mayhem?

Never once have I heard, seen, or read any reference to brave Palestinians risking their skin to help the Israelis defend against the various islamist kooks who incessantly plot against their most hated foes. The silence of so-called "Palestinians" with respect to organizations such as Hamas strongly suggests tolerance at the very least. I will go so far as to say that the likelihood stands that a large number of Palestinians actively support Hamas, even if only morally, though I am confident of the probability that many do more than that. That speaks not a word to innocence.

So if Palestinians are not working against Hamas, knowing what that organization is and what they do, then it becomes quite the stretch to assess them as innocent civilians who are unjustly made to suffer at the hands of the evil Israelis. Nobody wants to be murdered.

No matter how you slice this pie, at best Hamas comes out smelling very badly and looking abominably stupid. Taken more realistically, they are cowards and liars of the lowest order who claim to be fighting a war, because soldiers don't take hostages. These are not soldiers at all, but only craven milksop poltroons hiding behind the skirts of little girls for fear of reaping harsh consequences for their harsh acts. They want a free pass to kill and maim those whom they choose to hate. They want the proverbial free lunch.

I will go out on a short limb and assert that Hamas was not only aware of what would happen in the aftermath of their blood-bath, but that those consequences were in fact the point of the exercise. Mount a bloody assault on innocent people, knowing full well that a certain population was guaranteed to take heavy damage in the wake, while making absolutely no preparations whatsoever to deal with those horrific outcomes such that the worst possible horrors would be realized with thousands of dead and viciously maimed, so that you could then parade the mangled humanity upon the world stage and play the victim. This is precisely the brand of cynicism-soaked rot at which Hamas and other islamist interests are playing, all for the sake of seeing Israel destroyed.

Unless there was indeed some deeply concealed Israeli conspiracy to precipitate this attack in the spirit of a false-flag, only better, then it is abundantly clear that Hamas and the people of Gaza are the single and singular bad actors in this instance. As yet, there has been no evidence presented indicating that Israel committed any act that would justify such an attack, reducing Hamas to the standing of rank murderers and leaving the character and quality of the Palestinians in great question at the very least.

For the record, I write these observations as an indifferent third party who has no pony in this race. My broadest assessment of the players unequivocally indicates that there is plenty of blame to go around, Israel included. I would also note that never once in my entire lifetime have I encountered so much as the most oblique hint from either side that they might actually share in even the least measure of culpability for any act that they had ever committed, strongly suggesting that the problem in question is intractable and that things will not end well for anyone there.

I find the whole situation horrifying and repellent, pitying and despising all at once those who have chosen to embroil themselves in a destructive tantrum that shows no end in sight and whose practical sense leaves everything to be desired. To find this rivalry profitable, as doubtlessly some on both sides do, is distasteful in the extreme, and is worthy of nothing better than our deepest disdain.

Finally, I further note that the Palestinians are religiously bemoaning an absence of help from outside. My view on that, assuming the fact, is that it would seem a very unambiguous message that nobody likes them, perhaps because their problems are mostly all self-inflicted. Some of the Muslim entities are paying lip service to the Palestinian plight, yet none of them to my knowledge have opened their borders to welcome refugees, or their wallets to provide the basics of life for the displaced and injured. Where is the material support from a Muslim world that seems quite fond of boasting the virtues of Islamic generosity and charity? Thus far, I see none in evidence, but let us hope it shall be forthcoming, and forthwith.

What I see from the Palestinians is a load of cry-babying as they peddle arguments that do not stand up even to comparatively casual scrutiny. They tacitly support a raft of murderous lunatics, and then cry and moan when those whom they have brought to harm understandably retaliate, all the while expecting the world to fall at their feet, kowtowing. This is not likely to serve them well.

As the world descends ever further into madness, I can but bid you all well and offer my prayers for your wellbeing in these times where the lunatics are running the asylum. While I recognize the futility in doing so, I also hope the people of Israel and Palestine meet with success in finding mutually beneficial solutions that do not involve genocide.


Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Why The "Left" Will Never Be Happy

 

Over the years it has become painfully apparent that those who identify as "left" or "progressive" have never once in my experience showed so much as the least sign of satisfaction in... well, anything, save perhaps the misery of others.  No matter the nature of their goals and objectives, even when they "win", they remain of a bitter, anger-logged demeanor for whom their deep-seated resentments come forth in ever growing transparency, made outwardly manifest in torrents of bile and ever expanding circles of wild rage.  No matter how much they may gather unto themselves, whether by hook or by crook, more is apparently never enough for them. 

The left will NEVER be happy with what they have because they cannot be satisfied as matters of the very fabric of their most basic thoughts, which they have willfully chosen for themselves as the result of the fundamental assumptions they similarly chose to accept as real and reasonable, virtually all of which are fatally toxic to the truths that reality has set before all men as a lavish banquet for our good health and benefit. Those assumptions invariably lead to psychotic formations, which lead those who so subscribe to act atrociously, feloniously, and all too often murderously. The grim histories of the Soviet Union, Communist China, NAZI Germany, the manifold blood-soaked tyrannies of Africa, as well as those of the extremist Islamists; the petty Southeast Asian tyrannies as exemplified by the Khmer Rouge's killing fields; the almost comedic but similarly bloody tyrannies of meso- and South American "revolutions", and now the soft, but ever hardening tyrannies of modern day Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States of America, stand in bald-faced testament to the universally destructive nature of all that labels itself as "left" or, ever so ironically, "progressive".

As to how they operate, let us assume for argument's sake the lefties were to get everything they want. That would mean over half of the American population murdered. Fine - now that all the vermin are eradicated, they could then set themselves to the task of building America (or even the world with at least four billion murdered, preferably seven) in the image of their ideals. Ignoring the vagaries of those visions, and even if we assume sharply focused and perfectly defined images in a fit of unjustifiable generosity, those ideals will not be realized because it is not possible to do so.

Why? Glad you asked.

The ideals of the left spring from a deeply ignorant perception of, and assumption about human nature. It persists regardless of reality's lessons to the contrary, due to a stubborn refusal to acknowledge characteristics and qualities of the human animal that rub in a most unwanted manner against that which they demand: a perfect world where everyone is blandly and boringly equal, nobody's feelings are ever hurt, everything is "free", and where truth is a purely subjective notion. In other words, a world of endless wet-dreams and unicorn poo at every meal, as much as you can stuff into your gob.

Indeed, when the overtly fundamental character of humanity is pointed out to a lefty in violent contradiction of their unrealistic views, the predictable response is to retreat into shrieking, howling, and carrying on like ill-bred toddlers as they pitch tantrums worthy of the books. Because of this most unfortunate characteristic of the so-called "progressives", they are emotionally self-wired to concoct political ideas and the attendant requirements of implementation that are blatantly impossible to realize, not to mention patently absurd, prima facie, to anyone in possession of an IQ. Assessing their ideas as rank idiocies lends to them far greater credit than they merit, and hides the greater and most venomous bulk of the ferocious dangers they carry, from immediate scrutiny.

Being intransigently wed to their grotesquely malformed archetypes, they will double-down every time their attempts at bringing their clumsy ideas to fruition fail with perfect and universal predictability. Being utterly convinced of the flawless nature of their lunacies, they are compelled to explain away the endless strings of failures, which invariably requires the identification of a class of scapegoats who in their minds obviously had to have acted in "counter revolutionary" measure to thwart the infallible will of the "state", the "people", "satan", or whatever other nonsensical iconography they will have concocted as the presumed basis of just and absolute authority underpinning their felonious nonsense. The Soviet Union and Communist China are perhaps the premier examples of the typical, ham-fisted, and almost comedic manner in which the dullard-chiefs and other agents of those iconic institutions of the worst that humanity has to offer itself have gone about their business. Comedic, that is, were it not for the hundreds of millions of innocents they murdered in the name of their collectively psychotic visions of how life as a human being should be. Worse in a way yet were the NAZIs, whose authoritarian collectivist tyranny carried a sophisticated architecture that can at least be credited with having provided clear and unarguable benefits to its people, or rather, some of them. They were worse in that their tyranny was far more well thought out and carried forth. The enemies of decency and what for them was defined as proper civil life were all the undesirable people - Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and so forth. Even this might have had merit, had the NAZIs not made the fatal error of over-generalizing, which invariably leads to innocents being caught up in the nets that have been set out ostensibly for real and actual criminals.
There is no dearth of examples of the universal failures of the nonsense we commonly know today as "leftism" or "progressivism".  Failure is woven into the DNA of the world view in question, and there is no surgery possible that can correct this most horrific deformity of thought.  But the truth of this is no impediment to the people who choose to join themselves at their hips to this virulent mind-cancer that destroys all it infects.  And so we move on to the cycle that even the sanitized histories cannot hide.

The infallible architecture having failed so faithfully, and those in power being immutably committed to it, the hunt must commence for the human culprits who in the minds of the overlords must exist because the plan and vision cannot possibly be to blame. That subpopulation will be ferreted out by any means necessary, every resource being devoted to their exposure so that the bosses may then have the criminals righteously eliminated with great fanfare, the hatred-fueled rage of the people backing every move. With the evil having been excised, initiation of the next cycle "forward" commences, which perforce will also fail, leading to the next purge. Taken to its logically absurd conclusion, this rinse-and-repeat cycle of fury-driven auto-destruction under the divine guidance of the infallible leftist institutions of "state", we ultimately end up with but two cavemen remaining on the planet, each waiting for the other to fall asleep first as they nervously eyeball each other from opposite sides of the fire. That is what this brand of mindset brings, and nothing better. Dissatisfaction is the inevitable result of the efforts of the left because no other outcome is possible. Given enough latitude, the tyrants butcher and imprison humanity to the brink of extinction, and still they are not satisfied because they have married themselves to a way of existing that can lead to nothing other than dismal failure. Just imagine for a good moment what that really means - what it means to be so willfully blind to your own error that you keep to it as a drowning man clings to anything that he thinks, hopes, will bear him up and preserve his life. Such corruption cannot be given a number, nor can it be characterized sufficiently, suffice to say that it currently represents the greatest threat to the daily lives of everyone on the planet. As the left takes over, it will become apparent to even the most strident denier that humanity shall continue on the path to destruction of all that is good between men unless and until these criminally insane people are displaced and neutralized.

That is the general timbre of our prospects, so long as the raving insanities and inanities of the lunatic progressive continue to direct humanity into what can be nothing better than a future riddled with perpetually increasing levels of wholly unjustifiable and readily avoidable poverty, disease, death, and universal misery. May I prove mistaken in all of this. May the goodness of humanity come forth and set to rights all that is now so wildly and obviously amiss.

And until next time, may you all accept my best wishes.

Property Is Theft?

There are those who with bold stridency declare that "property is theft!"

Let's drill into this idea to see whether it holds any merit.  To that end, let us narrow the channel a mite and focus on a single question, assuming the assertion as a given:

Is your life your property?  That is, do you own your life?

If yes, then let us revert to a syllogistic form to see where this leads:

Property is theft.  [assumption] 

Your life is your property. [assumption] 

If your life is your property, your life is theft [modus ponens] 

Theft is by definition, a crime.  [definition] 

If your life is theft, it is a crime.   [modus ponens]

Criminality subsumes theft, meaning all theft is criminal, though not all crimes are theft. [logical consequence of definitions]

Criminality requires the existence of victims.  [by definition]

The simple act of existing as a living being creates no victim perforce.  [self-evident]

Therefore, one's life as one's property cannot be a crime.  

If one's life cannot be a crime, it cannot be theft, nor can it imply theft. [modus tollens]

Proof by contradiction, extensible to any property one may care to name.

QED.

One might ask the somewhat naive, or perhaps disingenuous question, "what about stolen property?"  The answer there is, of course, very simple: if the property is stolen, it never becomes the property of the thief.  This is, of course, the normative truth, but the truth nonetheless.  It does not mean that the thief does not wield proprietary control over the stolen goods.  It does, however, mean that every act he commits with the stolen property is by its nature one of inherent criminality.  This may not help the victim much, but in the case where the property is discovered as having been stolen, at least the victim may be restored in some measure, and hopefully justice served upon the thief.

We could stop here, as the matter merits no further consideration, but let us continue for the sake of putting the final nails in the coffin of this most absurd notion.

If your life is not your property, then a universe of absurdity opens before us, where quite literally anything goes because all consistency of logic and reason will have winged away into the mists of oblivion.  The simple fact of the assertion as true makes every human being who has ever lived a criminal by mere virtue of his birth; a felon with no possible avenue of redemption , save to go home to mom's basement, also a product of theft, retrieve dad's revolver, also a product of theft, and blow his own brains out.  But are they even his brains?  How can they be, if to have brains, possessing them as "property", is in itself the crime of theft?  The absurdity of rapidly growing Gordian Knot of wild insanity is, I pray, self-evident to all.  But just in case it isn't...

Food becomes property when one takes it up to eat.  One eats to continue his life, but if eating involves the assumption of property, which is theft and by that virtue a crime, then the act of continuing one's life becomes a crime by virtue of that assumption.  Are we to accept that the very acts of continuing our existences are then crimes?

One's life is his property. Were it not, one would hold no right to it and, therefore, no valid claim.  It would be up for grabs... or would it?  It would seem that nobody would have valid claims to anything, including their lives.  The world descends instantly into the depths of dementia with the acceptance of three simple words. You would have no right to defend your life against, ironically, "theft" by another, whether it were to enslave, or maim, or murder you.

One's life is what I have come to label as his "First Property".  All creatures are enjoined by their fundamental nature to preserve their First Property by any and all means at their disposal; to fight to preserve themselves at any and all cost. If someone attempts to deprive me of my First Property, I will take whatever means I deem necessary to prevent that from happening, up to and including depriving the thieves of their First Property. This is called "self defense" and nobody but the most insanely corrupt individuals deny such acts as those of a fundamental nature common to all human beings and, by logical extension, all living creatures.  Poke a paramecium, a single-celled eukaryotic organism, and it shoots trichocysts at you, small pointy darts, in defense of its First Property. 

To believe that property is theft is to believe in the validity of chaos, the deeper implication being that all human action is criminally invalid. After all, even if our lives are theft, how can anything we do be non-criminal, save perhaps to relinquish that which we have stolen, including our lives?  To accept the notion is to accept that we are irredeemable creatures, that all acts are criminal in their fabric,  and that there is nothing good that issues from humanity, whether a kind word or the saving of the lives of one's fellows in distress.  This is the reductio ad absurdum of the idea that property is theft.

If all property is the product of theft, which is a felony, then by direct implication there can be no valid human action. To interact with another human being in any endeavor, including sexual congress which may lead to new life, which is property and therefore theft, is to engage in the possession, manipulation, transfer, and/or destruction of stolen... erm... "property". And here we see the notion itself, that property is theft, gives rise to a fundamental, self-reinforcing, and inescapable contradiction, some of the branches of which can loop into infinity.  The absurdity is self-evident the moment one stops to think on the idea in even the most cursory manner.

Example of such a loop: Those who subscribe to the property-is-theft notion also, and paradoxically, tend also to subscribe to the idea of removing the property of others by force, that which one has stolen.  But how can this be valid when one is stealing stolen property?  So now someone else steals the stolen property that you then stole from the thief.  But now he who stole it from you is the thief, so someone steals it from him.  And so on it goes because the mutually antagonistic ideas of property is theft, and we must take by force the products of theft, work in self-reinforcing battle between fundamentally incompatible notions.  Logically speaking, once you enter that loop, you cannot get out, save perhaps by more criminal action through the violation of the moral duties that those mutually reinforcing ideas place upon the individual by direct implication.

If you don't accept the idea of confiscating such property, then you are by direct implication accepting theft as valid, or at the very least, tolerable.  That being the case, the sky becomes the limit of human prerogative.  Johnny then becomes entitled to rape Janey because the theft of Janey's bodily integrity is no longer an issue.

Confused yet?  Horrified?  Disgusted?  Eyeballs rolling from your sockets? You should be and they should be, because this is the sort of raving lunacy to which "property is theft" gives direct and rapid rise.

Furthermore, you as a human being, if you endeavor to continue your life while believing that property is theft, are then a criminal hypocrite whose only obligation is to immediately end your own life because even to feed yourself is theft and the continued support of the product of theft. This is wildly and insanely idiotic on its face and we have soundly demonstrated why it is so.

Under the presumption of this notion, one cannot even get to the question of whether that which one creates, whether for oneself or for another, is at any time his property or that of another.  Creation of anything material becomes an act of theft.  And what of ideas?  If I create a new notion, is that theft?  If I share it with the world, have I now implicated every human being in a criminal act?  The can of worms that opens before one's eyes with the acceptance of this falderal idea that property is perforce theft, has no discernible end.  The litany of questions to which the idea leads, stretches on well beyond the horizon, outward to the sides, and upwards and downwards until we drown in them, not a single one having a sufficient and reasonably acceptable answer.

Once again, and to be a broken record, the absurdity of this idea that property is theft nudges past the limits of infinity.

Conclusion: property is not theft, it is not perforce the product of theft, and that anyone who subscribes to this notion is mentally unsound, morally so, or both.

If you have heretofore bought into the notion that property is theft, you may now confidently and comfortably disabuse yourself of this folly, for you no longer have the excuse of ignorance.

Live long, prosper, and as always please accept my best wishes.

We Are As Slaves On A Prison Planet

 Many people are fond of embracing the lie that slavery had been abolished by the forces of good.  This fact befuddles me most perfectly.

Let us be clear: slavery is abolished on paper only and, practically speaking, only in certain forms and by certain parties for certain other parties.  Let us be further clear that those certain parties of the first part reserve for themselves every privilege of the slave master while the proletariate are denied such latitude.  They hypocrisy alone is staggering, much more so the wild criminality that this represents.

Slavery is alive and well in the human world. 

Starting at the bottom, there is all manner of sex trafficking going on all over the globe. Muslim nations openly conduct slave trade of all forms. Then, at the supposed "top" of the heap are Europe and America, both of which are metastatic with the slavery cancer. Sex trafficking is the obvious case, but the far deeper cancer is that of taxation and generalized "state" tyranny. "Governments" enact violative statutes that address no crime, yet falsely criminalize the acts in question, whether it be purchasing the services of a prostitute, buying/possessing/using "illicit" drugs, possessing a firearm without some arbitrary permission, or what have you. They then have the brass to call those statutes "law", which is one of the biggest lies ever told by tyrants, who make up any phony baloney nonsense as their caprice might move them.

Americans, and in general we are become an appallingly stupid race, believe they are "free". To that, I will tell anyone that if they truly believe that biggest of all lies, then do and by all means stop paying your property tax. In time, you will receive a nicely worded letter reminding you of your alleged delinquency. In more time you will receive a series of other letters, each new one less friendly than the last. Finally, a sheriff's deputy or two will come to evict you from what is supposed to be your property, which of course it is not. If you resist, they will become violent. Resist enough, and they will murder you.

Does that sound anything like freedom? If it does, then you stand in deep need of lessons in what actually freedom is.

The ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY is up to its eyeballs in slavery, make no mistake about that. That you are in some places afforded an expansive cage makes no difference to the fact that you are indeed a slave because you are by no means free to exercise your rightful prerogatives as a Freeman, but are only given permission to exercise a comparatively very limited set of choices as per the deign and whim of the Tyrant, who eternally reserves the right to rescind any and all rights any time he pleases, with or without cause.

The enlarged cage of the pretty slavery that has been foisted upon the world is now mistakenly conflated with actual freedom. That is the saddest joke of all recorded human history.

Civilization has proven itself liberty's undoing and the utter destruction of our freedom, in point of practical fact. Setting that first stone at Sumer was perhaps the greatest error ever made by anyone. But now that we are here, it is in fact possible to institute a free architecture and to dispose of all tyrants and with them, their tyrannies. The only question that remains is whether the human race will ever cough up enough self-respect to make it happen. At this juncture, that prospect appears grimly unlikely, which is a terrible shame because the human world could be ever so much better than it is, were it not for the deep and intransigently abiding corruption of the Mean Man.

Humans.

Give it all a think and, until next time, please accept my best wishes.

War Should Be Hell, Part Deux

 Why have all these wars in which America has been involved since Korea gone so miserably wrong? Two main reasons.

Firstly, involvement in wars of foreign aggression are FAIL as matters of fabric.

Secondly, if you are warring, then war. The ROE (Rule Of Engagement) should be one and only one: kill the enemy until he becomes a footnote in the fart-can of history, or he capitulates without condition. You kill them until there is no more warring going on from your enemy's side. America could have "won" in Viet Nam in about eight weeks, had we gone in with the intention of fighting an actual war. But no, we were there to "help", and got our asses handed to us, and rightly so, given point the first, above.

And so it has gone ever since. War is hell, and it ought to be. It should be so unspeakably horrifying that nobody even considers making the first move unless circumstances are so dire that one engages only with the greatest reluctance, and only as the last of all last resorts. When war happens, civilians should be indiscriminately murdered by the millions, pursuant to victory, if that is what it takes to achieve it. This goes for all sides. Let the horror, the real deal, no playing around terror of that thought sink into the minds of every human being on the planet, and we would suddenly see a whole lot less of this greatest of all wastes of time and the best in men.

The globalists try to make war sanitary, and therefore passably palatable in the eyes of people such that Theye can get away with waging it... at little to no risk to themseles. Theye are the first people who should be killed in war, along with their entire families. Erase their genetic lines in the most sadistically gruesome manners which most people cannot even imagine. Let the spectacle leave every man deeply injured in his soul in the way even holocaust survivors cannot comprehend. Erase Themme from the earth and let we who remain take that hard and horrific lesson to heart as we witness first hand the butchery of one human being by another on scales that leave men quaking and vomiting in fear and disgust, their souls weeping and wailing uncontrollably at the sight and the memory of it. Leave that in the minds of men and then maybe we humans would change our ways, though I remain to be convinced that it would become so.  

Nothing short of this sort of brutality to the minds of men will put war to its minimums because the average human being responds intelligently to nothing better.  The average man is willing to tolerate the worst outrages committed against some people by other people, so long as they are not the ones whose lives are being extinguished. 

Therefore, make us all the victims of the truth of what war actually means. Let us learn to properly fear war and regard it as something to be avoided at almost any cost, but not to the extent we renounce our claims to freedom. Indeed, the whole idea behind my grizzly design is to get people to better understand the value of life and of our inherent liberties. Nothing else appears to work these days, so I say for the sake of that greater good over which the communist/socialist/forced-collectivist ants so vociferously rant and rail with interminable devotion and rage, embrace the lesser evil - the one that steers us from the greater dishonor and the destruction of all that is good between men.  

Let the nightmare spectre loom forever in the minds of men, lest they once more run headlong into the breach which is the greatest of all wastes and shames and felonies of humanity.

Does this seem horrific?  Does the thought repulse you; fill you with repugnant disgust and fear?

Good.  That should tell you that you are a decent sort, but are you decent enough to become as steadfastly opposed to warring as you might be revolted by my design?  Let us hope so.

I'm not a fan of such actualities, but when the alternatives are far and away worse, I prefer sustainable injury to annihilation.

Please forgive the directness of this work, but given where we humans appear to be heading, which is nowhere good, I see no viable alternative than to suggest such gruesome measure for the sake of even worse outcomes.

Be well, God bless you, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Blaming "Religion"

In another forum, someone was going off on "religion" as some universal evil for which men would be well served to stamp from existence.  Forgetting the practical problems associated with this ill-considered idea, I would address the logical and philosophical issues.

Blaming religion, or any other non-substantive entity such as "government" or "the state" for the evils of the human world is a bad move because it is tantamount to excusing the individuals who are the actual culprits of vile, wicked, and dishonorable acts.  Such people, and these are common as dirt, use their personal versions of whatever beliefs they claim for themselves as the basis and, perhaps more significantly, the justification of, or even excuse for their actions, however atrocious.  This has been done countlessly over our recorded history, a most notable and comparatively recent example being those Germans who, during their trials at Nürnberg, claimed that they were "only following orders".  One of the greatest blows to freedom, and a grand opportunity missed, was our collective failure to hold the Soviets and communist Chinese to account and pay for the decades of murder, oppression, robbery, disease, and leaden misery each had foisted upon their own people, but were sadly and tragically allowed to skate when their reigns of terror were called out for what they were and, at least ostensibly in one case, came to ends.

Worse still are the cases of both America and Europe, each of which know better, yet are so hopelessly corrupted that their respective people knowingly and willfully decline to bring the hangman's noose to bear upon those so richly deserving that fate, we humans being our own worst enemies.  This is especially infuriating in the face of all the claims of a moral high ground, not to mention those of being "free" people.  The absurdity sits heavily as concrete on the mind.

Blaming "belief" is not unlike calling organically-intact people "stupid" and excoriating them on that basis, in that it implicitly excuses the bad choices made by those not suffering the faults of actual, clinical stupidity. One cannot hold a truly stupid man responsible for what he does, precisely because he is too stupid to understand the nature of his actions. But the intact man who willfully and knowingly chooses to act pursuant to some idiocy that produces an evil result may be justly held to account for what they have done.  This is especially the case for those in "government", for they occupy positions of Special Trust such that when they violate that confidence and fail to make full amends with interest, they should be punished most harshly for both the crimes they have committed against those to whom they swore their oaths of good faith and competent service, and to serve as the most ghastly warnings to all others who presume to bear the mantle of the Public Trust.

Let us be clear: religious doctrine in sé does nothing. It is one's choice to subscribe to a set of beliefs, its attendant values, and to behave in accord with those dictates that is the problem when evil results.  It is a problem of the individual choice of action, and not one of the notions and commandments themselves. So long as I fail to act, it matters no whit how wildly stupid or dangerous a notion I may choose to entertain.  Such specifications have no effect whatsoever if people ignore them, much like the commands of a dictator, military commander, mayor, cop, or evil stepmother. 

Tyrants are effective not because of innate power, but only due to what is granted them by the obedience of those who do their bidding.  Those, who by force of will choose to do as they are ordered, through the cumulative inertia of a critical mass, end up enthralling and enslaving themselves through their grossly misguided obedience to false authority, becoming cogs in a self-reinforcing network of imprisonment. 

Obedience to false authority is the greatest of all traps.

Had nobody heeded Henry, would Anne Boleyn or any of his other unfortunate wives have lost their crowns to the headsman's axe?

Have I mentioned that we are our own worst enemies?

It is our obedience to the non-authority of men no more gifted with the power of actual authority than you or I, that brings endless suffering and catastrophe to humanity's abode.  It is decidedly not "religion" or "political philosophy", or any other conceptual entity that causes the troubles we all suffer.  It is naught other than our own physical selves, acting as the voluntary instruments of wills clearly set against our own better interests that are responsible for the disasters and other miseries of our reality, ninety nine percepf of which are purely synthetic and would disappear in an instant, were we to come to our senses.  Our thoughts can direct our hands only with the decision to make it so. Barring that, we are impervious to misapplication and morally abhorrent command.

If we are to act as our own worst enemies, aiding and abetting the destruction of the rights of our fellow men, not to mention our own, we should at least show the decency to own up to our culpability in those decisions.  

We should enough of us be better than that. How much improved would our world be.

Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

Intolerance Of The Intolerable Is Virtue

Allow me to begin with the following assertion:

One of the most important things the Freeman must do pursuant to his Liberty, and that of all his brethren, is to adopt a mindset of stern and defiant, intransigent intolerance for all ideas and actions that thwart or otherwise disparage, and thereby violate, the freedoms of men.

This may seem obvious to some, yet until is it articulated in clear and unequivocal fashion, the notion lays latent in open sight before the eyes of vast legions of humanity.


Since at least the 1950s there has been an assault upon the people of the world, mounted in the war of ideas that has been raging for millennia, but which has, through the agency of twentieth-century technological developments, taken on a whole new dimension, hue, and intensity.

One of the spearheads of this assault, and there exist many others, has been the relentless and ever intensifying assertion of the notion of "tolerance". The use of the word has been hijacked by elements inimical to individual liberty. Pursuant to an agenda intent on foisting authoritarian collectivism on the entirety of humanity, the word now commonly carries tacit implications that tend to drive the mind toward a collectivist view. What has been done pursuant to that objective, has been to strip away any impulse to consider the notion of "intolerability". To leave such a notion as intolerability undisturbed and available to the thinking mind, is to reduce the violence and venom against the notion of "intolerance" as a universal, absolute, and utterly abhorrent option in the minds of people. Intolerance in any form, for any reason, save perhaps a small handful of a few very carefully chosen exceptions that facilitate the migration of mind and world-view toward the collective, is to be railed against with the greatest possible emotional bile and violence, crossing the barrier into the physical when "needed"†.

According to the orthodoxy of ever-so-ironically named "progressivism", the philosophy that underpins the tyrannies to which Theye subscribe themselves, is that all intolerance is the purest evil... that is, unless we speak of notions such as sexual preference, for example. In that case, intolerance of intolerance is not only acceptable, but mandatory as matters of pure faith, never to be questioned in any way, by anybody, for any reason whatsoever. Death is quite literally too good for anyone who questions the orthodoxy and those who hail as "progressive" will eat their own in such cases. The example of Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling serves as a fine instance of this sort of cannibalism. The moment the hard-left author raised so much as the mildest question regarding so-called "transgenderism", her own tribe and worshippers turned on her, wishing her dead, threatening her family, and embarking on a wild campaign to destroy the entire Harry Potter franchise.

I would also point out that the progressives' diprotically (hypocritically) inconsistent position on intolerance seems to go unnoticed by the vast plurality of humans, who seem merely to take it all on faith for no other reason than it has all been shouted at them with such frequency and intensity for so many decades, that it all becomes normalized in their minds. In this way do these deeply poisonous alterations of basic notions become truth in the minds of those incapable of, or uninterested in, discovering actual truth in favor of the lies that either don't matter to them, or perhaps serve the purposes of their individual corruptions pursuant to their goal of the proverbial "free lunch".

Considering the question of what, precisely, is tolerable v. intolerable, is one of the thought pathways that Theye endeavor to cut off or otherwise thwart at nearly any cost. It is, of course, an element of critical thinking, which must be discouraged with the greatest possible non-unequivocation and prejudice.

But in order for one to develop a well-balanced ability and habit of thought, one must be able to consider ideas from many angles, lest he fall into the error of opinions born of some form of tunnel-vision, the condition commonly called "narrow-mindedness" against which the progressives so vehemently shriek and rail. Oh, the irony of it all; the gross internal inconsistency of it. The clarions of open-mindedness who trumpet its mandatory nature, its central importance to all that is good in the world, turn out to be the most hopelessly closed-minded of us all. Did I mention irony?

Therefore, in order to understand certain categories of proposition, and here I speak of those political notions that touch upon, and possibly interfere with, the rightful praxeological and philosophical prerogatives of Freemen, one must consider those things which are indeed tolerable, versus those which are not. Contrary to the tacit implications of the progressive orthodoxy, the vistas open for consideration in such questions often tend to be expansive. Even in the most restricted cases, the landscape may be found to be considerably broader and extensive than Theye who would presume lordship over you, would have you believe. The narrower your world, the more easily controlled you become. And yet, this narrowness is peddled to the Meaner as broad. The tenets of modern-day, technologically-enabled tyranny, as set forth in Orwell's "1984" have been precisely and identifiably implemented by the authoritarian collectivists, and they are working so very well in corralling the minds of enough of the people to allow themselves to succeed in such wild measure as I suspect they never thought possible.

Pursuant to my infinitesimal and insignificant, yet forthrightly offered, effort to be a thorn in Theire sides to the greatest degree and extent to which I may successfully apply myself, I assert that a knowledge of what is tolerable, vis-à-vis what is not, is essential to a proper knowledge of the political world. This is especially important in a time such as this, where knowledge and understanding are being intentionally destroyed on a daily basis, the ultimate goal of which is to destroy the individual capacity for astute analytic thought.

When one has come to the correct sifting of tolerable and intolerable, he is then able to properly apply his attitude of intransigent intolerance of those things that lead to the degradation of life, in favor of that which edifies it.

Let me be clear on a very crucial point: very little of the terrors and horrors of the human world which we see today, exist of necessity. Nearly none of them are "organic". Rather, they are the results of synthetic conditions that have been set into place, whether by design, or the happenstance and outcomes of rank ignorance of unintended consequence. In other words, there are no inherent reasons why the world must wallow in the vile filth of misery, poverty, diseases both physical and of thought, and ultimately death. Sure, there will always be some of those sorts of things, but the degree to which they now dominate our daily existences is the product of our own hands. I further assert that that which we set into place, can be removed. We have every resource at out disposal. What we lack, is the sense, drive, and integrity to eat the bitter that would get us to that better land. The current state of the world cannot be wholly blamed on the "politicians", any more than the sidewinder can be blamed for biting the fool who attempts to cuddle up with him by the campfire at night. Onus rests mostly with we, the seeley and abused people whose conditions have arisen precisely because we have allowed it all to be made so. We are the true culprits in all this misery and ruin, and yet the door remains wide open to us to make all necessary amends to Liberty. The world is, in fact, our oyster. We have but to take it.

Therefore, I bid every man who wishes or otherwise presumes the status of Freeman, endeavor to learn and distinguish the tolerable from its antagonist. Bring yourself to the pride that enables you then to stand tall as a free being, submissive to no other man, and work as you are able to make clear that which may be accepted and that which must be resolutely rejected.

Finally, I bid that one and all  please accept my best wishes.







† Needed by whom, and for what reason?

So-Called "Statism" Is NOT A Mental Illness.

 Just moments ago, a fair and intelligent friend posted on a social media page an article whose headlines boldly proclaimed, "Statism is a self-accommodating mental illness".  I have yet to view the article, but felt immediately compelled to respond to the headline, which itself alone merited a reply. To that headline did I produce the following.

"It is not a mental illness. It is a WILL TO CORRUPTION.

I understand the drive to discount the notion of "statism", as it is eminently worthy of disparagement. But to falsely attribute the willfully chosen position that we tend to label as "statism" as a mental illness is as statist as one can possibly get.

Were it not the Soviets and Communist Chinese, in their ultimately statist modes and positions who, so very full of grasping avarice for absolute and total control over the minds and lives of every cockroach and housefly on the planet, who labeled any view on any matter imaginable that varied in the least way from that of their demented orthodoxies as "mental illness"? Was it not those self-same characters who decided that, having labeled an individual as mentally ill, anyone who was suffering from such illness was justifiably a candidate for any treatment whatsoever that the mighty, all-knowing, and infallible "state" might deem appropriate?  Did we, those who were, or might have become, the victims of those wildly and dangerously, murderously corrupt individuals, not learn the lessons they so graphically presented the world?  Apparently not.

There is a double-edged sword here - the edge that discounts those who disagree with the official line of the state because they are "mentally ill", by far the more dangerously razor-like periphery.  The other edge is that of the just and appropriate treatments which are forgone due to the use of the misdiagnosis such as found in the former, which perforce leads to unjust and most often horrific treatments that fall far beyond any punishment we might view as proper justice, even when such punishment is the removal of life from a criminal. There are, as I hope we all know, fates worse than death, many of them far more so.  With too-casual an examination, one might be tempted to ask what is the practical difference if the result be effectively same? There is a huge difference, even if it is a mite subtle for the average intellect, though I find little subtlety there because the consequences of making this error are far reaching and potentially very severe.  The result is nothing less than the corruption of the minds of men into believing a falsehood whose effects may grow as a cancer inside those minds, leading men to eventually accept as just and valid the most unspeakable evils imaginable.  Our very souls and that of all human posterity hang in that delicate, precarious balance.  This is the stuff of which man's worst nightmares are made: civilization gone wildly wrong, and that is precisely where we are heading today.  It needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, and forthwith before every remaining shred of basic sense has fled the last mind of the last man to possess it.

In the case of mental illness as the judgment, anyone so adjudged can be simply whisked away for any amount of time, treated in any manner whatsoever, including "medical" experimentation, the potentials of which nobody should need pointing out, given the educational examples we have at hand,  courtesy of the likes of Dr. Mengele. Furthermore, the practice leaves the door wide open for indefinite "treatment", along with confinement, because someone unaccountable for his actions, a "doctor" in whom full latitude is given within the expansively broad boundaries of his "professional opinion", is given free run to keep and treat such people in any manner they may see fit for as long as they deem the "patient" as remaining in a state of illness, leaving the door further open to the wildest and most unimaginably sadistic and cruel abuses. Do recall the practice and brute violence of the frontal lobotomy, always carried out with the gentle smiles of the well-intending "doctor".  God save us all from the good intentions of men.

No sir. As much as I see "statism" as a threat to everything that is good between men, I in no way or degree will accept the "mental illness" approach as ever being acceptable in any way or measure, just because some vaguely defines symptom has manifested in an individual. Such individuals may deserve shunning, a good beating, lecturing until they pray for death, prison, or even being executed in the most severe cases.  But by God they will be brought to their treatments honestly and justly, not just for THEIR sakes, but for OURS, that we do not become that which we proclaim to hate, a circumstance to which we are far more easily arrived than the vast plurality of humanity ever believes, and history proves me absolutely and in every way correct.

We must attribute such beliefs correctly or we become as hopelessly lost as those whom we would presume to hold accountable, not for the beliefs per sé, but for the criminal actions they take pursuant to those beliefs, and in satisfaction thereof.

To punish someone who is truly non compos mentis is itself an evil act. The man with brain lesions who murders his neighbor in a fit of uncontrollable rage cannot be justly held responsible for the act itself, though he may be justly separated from the company of his fellows for the sake of the future safety of his brethren. But that is an objectively identifiable cause of action, and not the fog-shrouded notion of "mental illness", itself a myth for reasons I will not go into here.  Slippery is the slope and razor-thin the edge we tread, when we accept the utter bullshit notion of "mental illness" as rot cause, that being precisely my point here - how presumably well intended remedies so rapidly and stealthily turn into the most quietly subtle, and thereby wildest evil that people see as just and proper.  The Devil ain't red with a bifurcated tail, horns, pitchfork, and spewing flaming brimstone from his nostrils.  He most often seems the loving and trustworthy elder uncle in whose lap one so willingly reclines and feels so safe.

So in the endeavor not to devolve into evil, we shun such punishment in favor of restriction of those who for whatever identifiable PHYSICAL conditions are rendered unsafe for the company of their fellow human beings. This may look like punishment, but it is not the same thing, and it is carried forth with nothing but the greatest reticence, sorrow, and compassion, whereas just punishment should be carried forth with a proper degree of disgust and anger for that which the criminal has committed, all idiotic presumptions of the neutrality of an automation notwithstanding and preferably to be tossed into the dustbin.

But when we properly consider the murder in our example as having been undertaken pursuant to very specifically "statist" objectives (perhaps the neighbor was against a welfare state, and so "had" to be eliminated in the opinion of the murderer), we properly endeavor to PUNISH one who has committed such a heinous crime with the aggravating factor of statist intentions. In such cases we may engage in such punishment with a valid and justifiable sense of anger that underpins the similarly justifiable desire to punish, rather than the current hokey stupidity of "rehabilitation", which is nobody's responsibility but that of the criminal, and which comes about purely as the result of an individual's desire to reform his ways and sin no further, rather than the obsequious solicitations and cajoling of... <DRUM ROLL>... the "STATE".

So let us dispense with the nonsense and call statism what it is: a will to corruption by the individual pursuant to the corrupt goals of obtaining that to which he is not entitled, using the brute force of the fiction we call "the state" or "government", to wrest by brute force and threats of imprisonment and even death, from the hands of some men the fruits of their labors, or even those associated with one's First Property, what we commonly call their very lives, whether that be their time, energies, or life itself.

This places proper onus upon the individual, allows for proper punishment or other treatments pursuant to crimes and misdemeanors committed for the virtue of fulfilling such corrupt beliefs and the wishes that derive therefrom, and leaves we, the people, free of the false notions that, when accepted as true, lead us to the most disastrous outcomes. The history of the twentieth century should serve as all the proof of my veracity of my assertions, and to understand just how precariously tenuous is the most basic nature of human relations, the principles of which drive all human interaction. Get the principles wrong, and everything that follows thereafter will be wrong.

Thought is everything, and where mind goes, Brother Ass follows most immediately and with perfectly slavish obedience. Think wrong, act wrong. Wrong words lead to wrong thought, leading to wrong action. The significance and severity of this cannot in any way be over-stated.

Words are important; they are the single most important things in any man's life, whether or not he realizes it."

Be well, God bless you all - even those who disagree with my views - and as always, please accept my best wishes.

Do We Need "Government"?

Certainly as currently constituted, we by no means need "government". We do, however, need governance. The main form of governance, of course, is that of the individual over himself, which is the ideal. We all know, however, that this fails plenty often enough to have long ago become a serious issue.

When one fails to govern his own behavior properly, it then falls to others to govern him in his own stead. This is a most dolorous and taxing necessity, placing a clear and deleterious drag on "society". We might call it a "bad behavior tax". In many cases, individuals take care of the problems that arise from such failures to self-govern by any of several means. Shaming and calling out such behavior is one way, and it used to work quite effectively, at least in the less severe cases - but it seems to have lost much of its power as people have lost their senses of proper shame for committing acts meriting such mortification. Nonetheless, it remains effective in at least a small proportion of instances, most often by parents instilling such senses into their children.

Then there is the good old-fashioned ass-whooping. Sometimes a human being needs to have the crap smacked out of him when he behaves atrociously. A well chosen beating, whether serious or a mere smack in the head, can work minor miracles.

Finally, we come to the far more serious and regrettable levels of correction and defensivee actions in which nobody with a lick of sense wishes to engage and which often leads to catastrophic injuries and even death. The felon, in the commission of his crime, is rightly thrashed to within an inch of his life, or even killed outright when his actions threaten the integrity of another's justly held properties, most significantly his First Property, which we commonly refer to as his "life".

There are, however, many cases where not only is the criminal thwarted in his designs, but he actually survives his felonious stupidity, and having been apprehended alive, the commission of which must be addressed for any of several reasons of accountability and equity.

First and foremost is the question of primary consequence for having committed, or attempted to commit, a felonious act. We do not simply dust the criminal off and send him packing with a stern word about sinning no more. There must be a significant price to be paid for his choice of action as both punishment, as a warning that we, the people, are quite serious about our intolerance of such behaviors, and in some cases as a practical measure for dealing with those who have demonstrated themselves unfit to be in the company of their fellows. There is also the compensatory angle. Despite having been foiled, or by other means called to account for his actions, the criminal may have in any event succeeded, however temporarily or otherwise partially, in depriving another of his freedoms and/or the rights that derive so naturally therefrom. Perhaps he injured his victim directly in a physical manner, or perhaps financially. Regardless of the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the criminal must do everything possible to make his injured party once again whole. In cases where it is not possible to do so, or where the criminal is unwilling, the latter must then pay with the currency of highest value known to men: his time in the form of occupying in a prison cell.


For example, if he break the arm of his victim, he must accept and repay all medical expenses incurred to restore the victim's arm to proper function. But once broken, an appendage can never recover quite 100%, and for that irredeemable aspect of his crime, the felon must pay with his time, and plenty of it.

So the question really comes down to how do we, as a collection of individuals we tend to call "society", institute governance in the cases where criminals need to be called to account and be punished for their vile and unjust acts? Are we to leave the various compensations for crimes up to each victim or his chosen agents? Ideally, that would seem the best course, but in practical terms it will not fly well, human beings being what they tend. A kid tosses his baseball through your costly plate-glass living room window: do you execute him as your notion of necessary repayment? Let us hope not. But the little darling must be held accountable. What to do? How about courts? Seems like a decent idea, but there are problems, as we are all able to readily see.

There is talk in libertarian, anarchist, and similar philosophical circles, of "private" courts. The way this idea is peddled tends to emotional appeal, but I can assure you that such courts would be no different that those of the so-called "state". Why? Glad you asked. Because humans. We have "government" courts, and in far too many cases we see the various corruptions in those dens of the crapshoot, whether it be incompetence, malice, the avarice of blind ambition, revenge, or some other bias that sets men's hearts afoul of the good and the just. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that private courts would play out any better, all else equal, once again because humans.

The answer lies not in whether the courts are public or private, but whether and how they are held accountable for their actions. For example, if a prosecutor is compelled by Law to produce to the court all exculpatory evidence, yet fails to do so, there are currently few consequences of any significance to be risked. But if the punishments be truly draconian, how many prosecutors will be willing to risk them for the sake of winning a case they know is bad in the first place by virtue of such evidence? Very few in my estimation, and when the injured parties of such perfidy are free to bring charges against such a prosecutor and the courts are given no choice but to try them, perhaps prosecuted by a party of the victim's choice, justice is likely to be best served, if even then imperfectly.

This is but one aspect of governance. Perhaps there are others, but by all means this is the bulk of it.

The advantage here is that every walking and breathing individual human being holds an equal stake in the institution, as well as equal power and authority, assuming equal risks for any improprieties they commit. Properly architected and administered, each man holds equal power in that institution, most particularly where injustices and crimes are committed. Imagine that ANY man or group thereof may call to account any other individual or group who, in their capacities as officials of governance (police, officials of the court including judges and prosecutors, etc.) have committed crimes either of malice or blunder. Imagine how different would be our daily reality. Gone would be the fear of saying the wrong thing or exercising a right in a way that would allow a rotten cop to drag you to the station in cuffs, to face an uncertain fate at the hands of a prosecutor and/or judge whose intentions and competence are not up to proper snuff. When all those in the chain of justice, including defendants, face grave consequences for the commission of errors and acts of malice or other corruptions, the landscape is cleared of the minefields into which the innocent so often and ignorantly wander today, often with terrible results.

Consider the case where a man shoots and kills an attacker. If he innocently admits that he shot the aggressor with the intention of killing him, even if for the sake of saving himself from being killed, rather than of "stopping the attack", he will likely face murder charges. It is precisely this brand of insane and wild corruption on the part of prosecutors that must be put to its proper and abrupt end, the same to be said for all such acts on the part of those who swear oaths of good faith and competent service to the people. The Law is not supposed to lie as a trap in wait for innocent men, yet that is precisely what it has become, having made a mockery of itself and the justice it is supposed to represent.

Make this one fundamental correction and the issue of whether we need "government" evaporates into the aether, as if it had never existed in the first place. By this means and for all practical purposes governMENT is removed, replaced with nothing but the conditions under which proper governance may be implemented and administered. This is the way of an optimally free and civilized society.

We humans are of a sort always to press the boundaries of that with which we can get away. That which we tolerate, we get more of precisely because the perpetrators are always pushing that envelope. This is one of the certainties of life, up there with death and taxes. Therefore, onus rests with each and every one of we who draw breath to define the borders and enforce them with a single minded and dare I say vicious intolerance that leaves the criminals in no state of confusion as to what will be their fate if they trespass. This goes for all criminals, but must be trebly emphasized for those in so-called "government" because the tendency to push boundaries is greatest where the temptations are greatest. Those in "government" live with the greatest temptations of them all, and must therefore be held on the shortest possible leashes, to taste the whip most bitterly when their behavior exceeds their office.

"Govenment" is just a label. There is not such thing in actual, material existence, but only in virtual terms. Never forget this and always bear it in the forefront of your awareness. It is the people bearing that label who must be addressed in terms of their behaviors and how we respond to excursions beyond their duly constituted authority. They must be treated with grim reprehension and retribution that when we are done with them, they will never again hold the least inclination of be otherwise able to make an encore performance. This way, we enjoy the benefits of the protections of those dedicated to such, while minimizing or even eliminating the felonies of abuse, whether by intent or accident. This is the design intent of the 28th Amendment to the Consititution of the United States of America. It is meant to empower every American citizen pursuant to maximizing the individual's ability to stave off the "state" and prevent it from running amok in the ways now so commonly encountered by those agents thereof who believe themselves to hold the authority to commit all manner of heinous crimes against those to whom they have sworn their oaths.

We have the power to crop "government" abuse by vast proportions. Making it so, however, is wholly up to us. There is no cavalry coming to your rescue, so the time is here for you to decide what it is you want, and it it is proper service by those whose jobs it is to protect your rights, then you need to start moving your asses, an Article V convention of the states being the righteous means to that end. We are far from having exhausted our options and civil war is in fact not the only remaining path to liberty as I had erroneously assumed in my frustrations of days and years past. No, ladies and gentlemen readers, the AVC is the answer and i contend that we must endeavor to pressure our state officials to ratify the call that we may, as architects of America's future, correct the errors that time has revealed in our current scheme of governance. The system is broken and it is up to every last one of us to step up to the Good Endeavor pursuant to our statuses as Freemen and for the sake of our freedoms and those of our posterity. The worst we can do is to sit idly in wait for the cavalry to arrive, because they aren't coming. YOU are the cavalry. YOU are the means by which this blessèd land has fallen into such deep troubles, and out of which it must be lifted. Only we, as lovers of freedom, can bring about recovery and actual improvement. We do this by coming to understand liberty; coming to love it in spite of all the scary and difficult bit therein, and becoming the bigger men by forgiving the sins of those whose views with which we do not agree.

By intent or otherwise, those in power have us at each other's throats and it suits them well enough to keep it so. Don't fall for the bait, regardless of how you identify politically. There is an enemy of all humanity: the tyrant and his enforcers. Let us come together in sufficiency to stop him dead in his tracks and ensure that his kind can no longer rise to power. He will always exist, and so it is to the dirt to which we much relegate him, and it is in the dirt to which we must ensure he remains forever. After that, if we want to return to the back-biting, then so be it. But for now, let us be at the very least, strange bedfellows acting in common to displace and render impotent those whose aim is to bring us all to wrack and ruin. We can do it, but we must have the will to do so and to set aside our differences, at least for the time being.

God bless America, God bless our freedom, God bless you, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Diprotisy (Hypocrisy) Is The Root Of All Crime

Words never cease to amaze me, not only in their meanings, but in the dangers they pose when their semantics vary over time, most often from mis- or abuse, intentional or otherwise.  

My purpose here is to demonstrate how hypocrisy is the basis of all crime, yet the original meaning of the term makes references other than that which I intent. To wit, Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785 defines hypocrisy as "dissimulation with regard to the religious or moral character."  Dissimulation, in turn, is "the act of dissembling; hypocrisy."  Do note the circular definition. Dissemble: "to play the hypocrite; to use false professions; the wheedle."  Note again the circularity.

The Oxford etymological dictionary defines hypocrisy thusly:

 c. 1200, ipocrisie, "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness," from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis "hypocrisy," also "an imitation of a person's speech and gestures," from Attic Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage; pretense," metaphorically, "hypocrisy," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see hypo-) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (from PIE root *krei- "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h-was restored in English 16c."

All of the several other sources I consulted provided no improvement on these results, a "hypocrite" being one whose true opinions or virtues, do not conform with those professed publicly or privately, particularly with respect to religious or moral issues.  This original sense of "hypocrite" has little semantic relation to what one can only conclude is a modern mangling of the original, the relationship between the two being apparent, albeit in a somewhat tortuously stretched, tenuously thin, and overly-subtle way.  

The sense to which I refer is that of the "double-standard", a term that somehow does not hold the same oomph as "hypocrisy", not to mention that its first known usage dates back only to 1872, a mere 151 years from the date of this writing.  It was my hope to discover a far more ancient term that would convey the sense of a double standard with a singular and unambiguous force, yet I have been unable to identify such a word that met the requirement in a powerfully satisfactory way, which I find perplexing and somewhat disturbing.  How, I ask, would a man of the tenth century have described that which many today is known as the double standard?  I can't find it.  The various thesauri list terms such as:

biases
favoritism
partisanship
unfairness
favoritism
nonobjectivity
inequity
discrimination
prejudice
favor
illiberality
tendentiousness
inequality
tilts
bigotry
injustice
one-sidedness
prepossession
preconceptions
unjustness

None of these words carry the double-standard meaning or implication, save in the most obliquely indirect senses, many of them being either elements of a double-standard, or an effect or result thereof.

Therefore, I shall coin the term "diprot", from the Greek διπλά πρότυπα (diplá prótypa, literally "double standard").  Its form shall be as follow:

diprot, n.  A double-standard.  

 "Governmental monopoly on force is the most heinous of all diprots."

diprotisy, n.  Instance where a double-standard is present.  Synonymous with the same, mistaken and modern sense of "hypocrisy", as distinguished from the proper sense of not being as one presents himself.

 "The diprotisy of his vote on the bill left him untrusted by voters."

diprotor, n. 1  A hypocrite in the sense of one who judges by, or employs a double standard that either releases an individual from a stricture that is to apply to others, or confers a right or privilege denied to others, in all cases where no just, logically valid, or truthful basis exists for so doing. 

 "Commonly known as The Great Diprotor, the judge was hated throughout the land as a tyrant for her uneven treatment of defendants for the same crimes."

diprotorous, diprotical adj. 1 Of or relating to a condition, action, or thing having the quality of a double standard. 

"The diprotorous government edict lead to violent revolution."

diprotical, adj.  1 Of, or relating to a double standard. 

"Stanley's resentment arose from his mother's diprotical treatment of himself and his younger brother."

diprotorine, diprotoresque, adj. 1 Having a quality or character suspiciously reminiscent of a double standard.   

"The diprotoresque specter of the proposed legislation lead to violent protest in the streets of the city."  

"His diprotorine acts eventually left him with little trust from others."

diprotorize v. To imbue with or lend the character of an invalid double standard. 

 "If you diprotorize the Law, you will be despised by everyone in town."

diprocate, diprocation v. To act as a diprotor, the act of one who diprocates.  

"His diprocation on punishment for Congressmen's crimes backfired on him wildly." 

I find it somewhat surprising that a term dedicated to the double-standard sense of "hypocrisy" is not to be found, since the concept is central to many issues that relate to our innate freedoms, not to mention all other manner of human transactions.  Whether this new and dedicated term catches on, only time will tell. Being dedicated to the concept of double standards, unlike hypocrisy, for which that sense is a relatively modern bending of a word, "diprotisy" is dedicated to that notion in its origin and derivation, and therefore cannot be reasonably taken as relating to anything else.

Getting to our ultimate point, the purpose here is to make clear that diprotisy is a foundational characteristic common to all crime.  It is safe to assume that no robbers wish to be robbed.  The likelihood of rapists wanting to be raped, is vanishingly small, as would be the case for murderers being murdered.  Child molesters are most likely to resent being molested, likely were, and by that means became molesters themselves.

The criminal, in the commission of his crime is saying "I can do to you, but you cannot do to me".  Is this not the very core of so-called "government" operations?  Is it not the very essence of the master/slave relationship?  All such relationships and events employ invalid double standards, and as such are in themselves despicable, prima facie.  In the case of crimes, they are plainly felonious.

For the sake of clarity and completeness it must be pointed out that there are valid double standards.  A fine example of this would be that of parent and child, where the former may admonish the latter with "do as I say, not as I do."  The parent may consume alcoholic beverages and smoke cigarettes, yet the child is validly forbidden from such activity for any of a number of self-evidently just reasons.  Judging different things based on standards appropriate to each, those standards are perforce going to be different where such differences are relevant to the judging.  One does not, for example, judge the flavor quality of an apple using the standards used for similar judging of oranges.  

In issues of sameness, however, such as those of the common innate freedoms of all human beings and the rights that derive therefrom, the standards of measurement and judgement must be mostly and perforce identical across all lines of consideration.  To do otherwise, most particularly where disparagement of the rights of an individual or group thereof is the result, constitutes a felony of the highest order, meriting severe consequences.

There is no case of crime where diprocation has not served as an elemental, overarching, and dominating factor.  In such senses, diprotisy stands as an utter evil.  To act as a diprotor is an utmost cause for shame to be avoided at nearly any cost.  To be labeled as a diprotor should be viewed as grand mockery, a grave accusation, and as such one should use the word with due care in consideration and discretion.

May you find this discourse of some practical value, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.